Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[gad-fly]

The big problem is to formulate a general definition of "art(work)" which covers all kinds of art and historically everything from cave paintings to Duchamp's ready-mades, from traditional naturalistic&realistic art to abstract art and conceptual art.

Kinds of art (with "art" and "craft" not used synonymously):

1. architecture
2. cinema
3. conceptual art
4. culinary art/art of cooking (haute cuisine) [ordinary cooking is just a craft]
5. dance
6. drawing
7. fashion/art of clothing (haute couture) [the ordinary making of clothes is just a craft]
8. literature
9. music
10. opera
11. painting
12. performance art (happenings)
13. photography
14. printmaking [e.g. lithography and woodcut – ordinary printmaking such as the printing of newspapers is just a craft]
15. sculpture
16. theater
17. video art

Your mentioned "big problem" can be reduced by defining art as:
The glow of non-functional and non-physical significance, following creation of works.

In this respect, art may be found even if the creation does not arise with art in mind. Conversely, a creation with art in mind, which is a work of art, may not be art if it does not carry the glow. In layman term, a work of art may not be artistic, as can be seen in drawings by kids.

[Count Lucanor]

The big problem is to formulate a general definition of "art(work)" which covers all kinds of art and historically everything from cave paintings to Duchamp's ready-mades, from traditional naturalistic&realistic art to abstract art and conceptual art.

Kinds of art (with "art" and "craft" not used synonymously):

1. architecture
2. cinema
3. conceptual art
4. culinary art/art of cooking (haute cuisine) [ordinary cooking is just a craft]
5. dance
6. drawing
7. fashion/art of clothing (haute couture) [the ordinary making of clothes is just a craft]
8. literature
9. music
10. opera
11. painting
12. performance art (happenings)
13. photography
14. printmaking [e.g. lithography and woodcut – ordinary printmaking such as the printing of newspapers is just a craft]
15. sculpture
16. theater
17. video art

I'm not sure about the distinction between art and crafts that you apply to these practices. Some of them I would surely categorize as crafts, but then: what are your definitions of arts and crafts?

[LuckyR]

The big problem is to formulate a general definition of "art(work)" which covers all kinds of art and historically everything from cave paintings to Duchamp's ready-mades, from traditional naturalistic&realistic art to abstract art and conceptual art.

Kinds of art (with "art" and "craft" not used synonymously):

1. architecture
2. cinema
3. conceptual art
4. culinary art/art of cooking (haute cuisine) [ordinary cooking is just a craft]
5. dance
6. drawing
7. fashion/art of clothing (haute couture) [the ordinary making of clothes is just a craft]
8. literature
9. music
10. opera
11. painting
12. performance art (happenings)
13. photography
14. printmaking [e.g. lithography and woodcut – ordinary printmaking such as the printing of newspapers is just a craft]
15. sculpture
16. theater
17. video art

I'm not sure about the distinction between art and crafts that you apply to these practices. Some of them I would surely categorize as crafts, but then: what are your definitions of arts and crafts?

To many art is distinguished from craft in that an artist creates a new (to him, at least) creation, whereas a craftsman produces a piece that is a copy of an already existing original.

[Count Lucanor]

The big problem is to formulate a general definition of "art(work)" which covers all kinds of art and historically everything from cave paintings to Duchamp's ready-mades, from traditional naturalistic&realistic art to abstract art and conceptual art.

Kinds of art (with "art" and "craft" not used synonymously):

1. architecture
2. cinema
3. conceptual art
4. culinary art/art of cooking (haute cuisine) [ordinary cooking is just a craft]
5. dance
6. drawing
7. fashion/art of clothing (haute couture) [the ordinary making of clothes is just a craft]
8. literature
9. music
10. opera
11. painting
12. performance art (happenings)
13. photography
14. printmaking [e.g. lithography and woodcut – ordinary printmaking such as the printing of newspapers is just a craft]
15. sculpture
16. theater
17. video art

I'm not sure about the distinction between art and crafts that you apply to these practices. Some of them I would surely categorize as crafts, but then: what are your definitions of arts and crafts?

To many art is distinguished from craft in that an artist creates a new (to him, at least) creation, whereas a craftsman produces a piece that is a copy of an already existing original.

This doesn't seem to explain the distinction. Although many craftsmen reproduce identical copies of the same piece, there's ample room for variation and even small innovations, without leaving the world of crafts. On the other hand, following the same criteria, the performance of a piece following the instructions of its author (such as a musical score or a theatrical script) could never be considered the work of an artist. All videos, even those of the news, are different creations. Are they all art? All of photography?

[LuckyR]

The big problem is to formulate a general definition of "art(work)" which covers all kinds of art and historically everything from cave paintings to Duchamp's ready-mades, from traditional naturalistic&realistic art to abstract art and conceptual art.

Kinds of art (with "art" and "craft" not used synonymously):

1. architecture
2. cinema
3. conceptual art
4. culinary art/art of cooking (haute cuisine) [ordinary cooking is just a craft]
5. dance
6. drawing
7. fashion/art of clothing (haute couture) [the ordinary making of clothes is just a craft]
8. literature
9. music
10. opera
11. painting
12. performance art (happenings)
13. photography
14. printmaking [e.g. lithography and woodcut – ordinary printmaking such as the printing of newspapers is just a craft]
15. sculpture
16. theater
17. video art

I'm not sure about the distinction between art and crafts that you apply to these practices. Some of them I would surely categorize as crafts, but then: what are your definitions of arts and crafts?

To many art is distinguished from craft in that an artist creates a new (to him, at least) creation, whereas a craftsman produces a piece that is a copy of an already existing original.

This doesn't seem to explain the distinction. Although many craftsmen reproduce identical copies of the same piece, there's ample room for variation and even small innovations, without leaving the world of crafts. On the other hand, following the same criteria, the performance of a piece following the instructions of its author (such as a musical score or a theatrical script) could never be considered the work of an artist. All videos, even those of the news, are different creations. Are they all art? All of photography?

So what do you think is the difference? I'm saying a craftsman possesses the skills of production, an artist also possesses the skill of creation.

[Count Lucanor]

So what do you think is the difference? I'm saying a craftsman possesses the skills of production, an artist also possesses the skill of creation.

To clarify this, it would be nice if you could answer the following question: is the creator of the latest iPhone an artist? Is it the designer of the newest Ferrari?

[LuckyR]

So what do you think is the difference? I'm saying a craftsman possesses the skills of production, an artist also possesses the skill of creation.

To clarify this, it would be nice if you could answer the following question: is the creator of the latest iPhone an artist? Is it the designer of the newest Ferrari?

The latest iPhone? No, it's just a rework of a design. Not an innovation, an evolution.

The original Movado watch OTOH is part of the permanent collection at the Museum of Modern Art.

The newest Ferrari might be a brand new model, but is likely to be an evolution of the Pininfarina 308GTB design from 1975. So it is unlikely to be considered art (and it's designer an artist) by those outside of the sportscar community.

[Consul]

Are they all art? All of photography?

For example, I wouldn't call ordinary holiday snapshots works of art.

[Count Lucanor]

So what do you think is the difference? I'm saying a craftsman possesses the skills of production, an artist also possesses the skill of creation.

To clarify this, it would be nice if you could answer the following question: is the creator of the latest iPhone an artist? Is it the designer of the newest Ferrari?

The latest iPhone? No, it's just a rework of a design. Not an innovation, an evolution.

The original Movado watch OTOH is part of the permanent collection at the Museum of Modern Art.

The newest Ferrari might be a brand new model, but is likely to be an evolution of the Pininfarina 308GTB design from 1975. So it is unlikely to be considered art (and it's designer an artist) by those outside of the sportscar community.

That was not very convincing. The Movado watch, as interesting and original as it was, was still based on the manufacturing practices of preexisting wrist watches, to which some innovations were added. You could perfectly call that an evolution on wrist watches. Its creator is usually regarded as an industrial designer, the same type of creator that is responsible for designing things like iPhones or cars. All industrial designs are creations, and many of them are designed to look different, to be distinct from each other, so why aren't they all considered the work of artists?

For example, I wouldn't call ordinary holiday snapshots works of art.

The point is what makes them "ordinary".

[LuckyR]

So what do you think is the difference? I'm saying a craftsman possesses the skills of production, an artist also possesses the skill of creation.

To clarify this, it would be nice if you could answer the following question: is the creator of the latest iPhone an artist? Is it the designer of the newest Ferrari?

The latest iPhone? No, it's just a rework of a design. Not an innovation, an evolution.

The original Movado watch OTOH is part of the permanent collection at the Museum of Modern Art.

The newest Ferrari might be a brand new model, but is likely to be an evolution of the Pininfarina 308GTB design from 1975. So it is unlikely to be considered art (and it's designer an artist) by those outside of the sportscar community.

That was not very convincing. The Movado watch, as interesting and original as it was, was still based on the manufacturing practices of preexisting wrist watches, to which some innovations were added. You could perfectly call that an evolution on wrist watches. Its creator is usually regarded as an industrial designer, the same type of creator that is responsible for designing things like iPhones or cars. All industrial designs are creations, and many of them are designed to look different, to be distinct from each other, so why aren't they all considered the work of artists?

For example, I wouldn't call ordinary holiday snapshots works of art.

The point is what makes them "ordinary".

Well part of the problem with your commentary is you're ignoring the role of the audience in determining whether they find the work "artistic".

[Count Lucanor]

Well part of the problem with your commentary is you're ignoring the role of the audience in determining whether they find the work "artistic".

I'm not ignoring it, since it is understood that you and me, as members of an audience, are discussing how to determine whether something is a work of art or a craft. Maybe you agree with some audiences about their criteria to determine that something is a work of art, but that's precisely what I'm asking: what is that criteria? As I have shown, the criteria that you mentioned first, doesn't seem to be consistent, something must be missing.

[LuckyR]

Well part of the problem with your commentary is you're ignoring the role of the audience in determining whether they find the work "artistic".

I'm not ignoring it, since it is understood that you and me, as members of an audience, are discussing how to determine whether something is a work of art or a craft. Maybe you agree with some audiences about their criteria to determine that something is a work of art, but that's precisely what I'm asking: what is that criteria? As I have shown, the criteria that you mentioned first, doesn't seem to be consistent, something must be missing.

Actually there are two related yet separate topics, I addressed one, now you're shifting to the other. I addressed artists vs craftsmen, you're discussing what makes art, art. I was taking about creators, you're talking about creations.

Obviously a creator can create many things, some might be art, others not. If some of it is art, he's an artist (pertaining to that particular piece). If other creations aren't art, he's still an artist, by label, though pointing out his non artistic pieces adds no additional information to that label.

[Count Lucanor]

Well part of the problem with your commentary is you're ignoring the role of the audience in determining whether they find the work "artistic".

I'm not ignoring it, since it is understood that you and me, as members of an audience, are discussing how to determine whether something is a work of art or a craft. Maybe you agree with some audiences about their criteria to determine that something is a work of art, but that's precisely what I'm asking: what is that criteria? As I have shown, the criteria that you mentioned first, doesn't seem to be consistent, something must be missing.

Actually there are two related yet separate topics, I addressed one, now you're shifting to the other. I addressed artists vs craftsmen, you're discussing what makes art, art. I was taking about creators, you're talking about creations.

Obviously a creator can create many things, some might be art, others not. If some of it is art, he's an artist (pertaining to that particular piece). If other creations aren't art, he's still an artist, by label, though pointing out his non artistic pieces adds no additional information to that label.

I asked Consul what were his definitions of arts and crafts to find a distinction. You said that the distinction was the creation of something new vs the reproduction of something previously created. I've been staying within these boundaries set by yourself, so I don't see how I could be addressing different topics. One should assume that artists make art (pertaining to a particular piece), while craftsmen make crafts (also pertaining to a particular piece), and therefore, keeping within your definitions, a person is an artist when he/she creates something new, while a craftsman or a craftwoman when he/she reproduces something previously created.

I gave you examples of both things created as new and reproduced, yet your distinctions between creation and reproduction, between art and craft, between artist and craftsman, don't seem to apply. There are many new designs, that is, innovations, in everyday life, yet they are not treated as art objects. OTOH, there are many reproductions, such as performances, which are said to be instances of art.There's something missing in your definitions.

For many centuries, there was no distinction between an artist and a craftsman in relation to the novelty of what they produced. People that made objects for practical everyday life or rituals were praised as highly skilled if they produced (or reproduced) things perceived as beautiful or technically correct (as in the art of hunting or speaking in public). During the Middle Ages and the Renaissance, the guilds of painters or sculptors were not different in conception than the guilds of carpenters and barbers. Many of such associations had a master and disciples which worked with the reproduction of the same designs, which is why sometimes many praised works of Rembrandt or Tintoretto are found to be made by their pupils. The emergence of art in its modern conception of artists as individual genius and their work as made exclusively for aesthetic contemplation, art for art's sake, began during the Romantic period. That conception, however, has slowly being on decline. Most of what you see in art galleries today is nothing but craft, at best.

[Consul]

I asked Consul what were his definitions of arts and crafts to find a distinction.

I'm sorry, I have no definitions of these terms yet that are ripe for presentation.

[LuckyR]

Well part of the problem with your commentary is you're ignoring the role of the audience in determining whether they find the work "artistic".

I'm not ignoring it, since it is understood that you and me, as members of an audience, are discussing how to determine whether something is a work of art or a craft. Maybe you agree with some audiences about their criteria to determine that something is a work of art, but that's precisely what I'm asking: what is that criteria? As I have shown, the criteria that you mentioned first, doesn't seem to be consistent, something must be missing.

Actually there are two related yet separate topics, I addressed one, now you're shifting to the other. I addressed artists vs craftsmen, you're discussing what makes art, art. I was taking about creators, you're talking about creations.

Obviously a creator can create many things, some might be art, others not. If some of it is art, he's an artist (pertaining to that particular piece). If other creations aren't art, he's still an artist, by label, though pointing out his non artistic pieces adds no additional information to that label.

I asked Consul what were his definitions of arts and crafts to find a distinction. You said that the distinction was the creation of something new vs the reproduction of something previously created. I've been staying within these boundaries set by yourself, so I don't see how I could be addressing different topics. One should assume that artists make art (pertaining to a particular piece), while craftsmen make crafts (also pertaining to a particular piece), and therefore, keeping within your definitions, a person is an artist when he/she creates something new, while a craftsman or a craftwoman when he/she reproduces something previously created.

I gave you examples of both things created as new and reproduced, yet your distinctions between creation and reproduction, between art and craft, between artist and craftsman, don't seem to apply. There are many new designs, that is, innovations, in everyday life, yet they are not treated as art objects. OTOH, there are many reproductions, such as performances, which are said to be instances of art.There's something missing in your definitions.

For many centuries, there was no distinction between an artist and a craftsman in relation to the novelty of what they produced. People that made objects for practical everyday life or rituals were praised as highly skilled if they produced (or reproduced) things perceived as beautiful or technically correct (as in the art of hunting or speaking in public). During the Middle Ages and the Renaissance, the guilds of painters or sculptors were not different in conception than the guilds of carpenters and barbers. Many of such associations had a master and disciples which worked with the reproduction of the same designs, which is why sometimes many praised works of Rembrandt or Tintoretto are found to be made by their pupils. The emergence of art in its modern conception of artists as individual genius and their work as made exclusively for aesthetic contemplation, art for art's sake, began during the Romantic period. That conception, however, has slowly being on decline. Most of what you see in art galleries today is nothing but craft, at best.

That is a nice summary. Given that context it seems my original comment is directed at the distinction between art and craft among what is classicly appreciated as art. Say a poster vs an original oil.

In modern times, certain industrial products have crossed the line into art. You're right, there are industrial designers who create new nonartistic, functional pieces routinely. Let's take the rake In Advance of the Broken Arm who's the artist? (Assuming that it is art, which is not universally accepted). It's not the worker who made that exact rake, it isn't even the original designer of that rake, or even the inventer of the first rake, it's the artist who had the (new) idea to give it a name and hang it in his gallery.